Slashdot Mirror

Baroness Helena Kennedy's SOAS is the notorious "School of Organized Anti-Semitism". Check JIDF blogs for more info. ... Kennedy sits on the board of the The Institute for Strategic Dialogue which is responsible for The Strong Cities Network

Sana Amanat, Marvel's Muslim VP of Content and Character Development and Ms. Marvel co-creator, is the cousin of Huma Abedin ... A non-profit Omar Amanat co-founded, Soliya, received a $1.25 million grant from the State Department

Soliya has merged with the UN-established Alliance of Civilizations Media Fund ... Suhail Rizvi is a major investor in Twitter. Some reports say he owned 15% of the company when it went public. ... In the best case scenario, "Strong Cities" is just an intelligence sharing network. In the worst case scenario, it is the surrender of territory to Farah Pandith's organization.

Wikimedia Foundation trustee Bishakha Datta is the chair of the Association for Progressive Communications,[1] a member of the Internet Governance Forum and a promoter of the notion that disagreeing with a woman on the Internet is "Cyber Violence" and should be judged as a crime under existing battery law.[2] ...
Wikimedia Foundation board member Esra'a Al Shafei is funded by the Omidyar Foundation and is a board member of AccessNow,[299] a project of Democratic Party activist group Avaaz / Purpose Action[300] that is best known for its public relations support for the delivery of arms to al-Qaeda in the Benghazi scandal and to ISIS in Syria.[301] ...
Longtime Esalen employee[12][13] John Marks and his wife Susan Collins Marks run Search for Common Ground which ran the The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project with the Consensus Building Institute and the Rockfeller Brothers Fund.[14][15][16] The project produced a report in 2008 that called for American support for the Muslim Brotherhood.[17] Susan Collins Marks is on the board of the Future Shapers Collaborative with Muna AbuSulayman,[18] manager of Kingdom Holdings of Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal and daughter of Abdulhamid Abusulayman of the International Institute of Islamic Thought who called for the "Islamization of Knowledge" in 1989.[19] ...

As of 2013,[316] the Wikimedia Foundation's major donors include: ... Arcadia Fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin and Jacob Rothschild[20]

Remember Sad Puppies? The guys who took over the Hugo Awards used to do PR on BoingBoing for the Taliban and the Kashmiri jihad. People who disagreed were banned and had their posts removed. It was one of the first sites to do that.

Microsoft hired Suhail Khan, a guy under investigation for the past 20 years for his affiliations with terrorists, as its director of external affairs.

Remember that "safe space" campaign a few years back? It was run by the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Their definition of a "safe space" is one where no one has ever criticized Islam.

Remember that "Women's March" that was supposed to be about abortion rights but had oppressive hijabs all over the place? Its organizer has family members in jail for helping Hamas. Guess who Chuck the Schmuck brought to the center of the United States government to protest against Brett Kavanaugh.

Remember that group that harassed Bern

found online, not vouching for its accuracy

Independent verification of FBI Anon claims

1995: Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, Izaac Herzog, and an unidentified Israeli representative meet to discuss the possibility of Bill Clinton pardoning Marc Rich in exchange for Rich funding the PLO, a Muslim terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...

Qatar would buy a stake in Marc Rich's company Glencore after his death, and Qatar and Glencore would operate in concert afterwards.

2000: Marc Rich associate Michael Steinhardt controls the DLC and Progressive Policy Institute.
http://www.deepcapture.com/200...

2003: George Soros and Morton Halperin placed John Podesta as founding head of the Center for American Progress.
http://www.discoverthenetworks... https://archive.is/Gb2FV

Under Podesta's watch, unknown persons placed accused Hamas fundraiser Faiz Shakir as Vice President of the Center for American Progress and chief editor of Think Progress. In 2011 Faiz Shakir and Wajahat Ali produced the report "Fear Inc." smearing national security analysts and political activists who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood, including liberal Muslims.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fp... https://archive.is/tOxwC

Online rumors have attempted to connect the art trading of John Podesta's brother Tony Podesta with Qatari art purchases of works by Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons who have been hosted by Qatar Museums.
http://qz.com/764975/qatars-oi...

The Podesta Group lobbyied for Qatar Petroleum in 2013.
https://www.desmogblog.com/201...

2004: The Awan brothers begin employment in the US Congress and will work under Robert Wexler, Xavier Becerra, Gregory Meeks, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others before they are exposed as a spy ring in 2017.
http://www.politico.com/story/...

2005: Unknown persons placed Emad Shahin and Juliette Kayyem in the Dubai Initiative which produced propaganda to promote the Muslim Brotherhood using the name and reputation of Harvard University.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar...
Emad Shahin was convincted in absentia of aiding Hamas and Iran to overthrow the Egyptian government.
http://emadshahin.com/?p=1839
https://news.vice.com/article/...
Juliette Kayyem advocated for Qatari state television network Al-Jazeera and wrote "The War On Terror Is Over" to discourage continued resistance to al-Qaeda.
https://www.boston.com/bostong...
https://www.boston.com/bostong...

2005: Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal paid Georgetown University $20 million to continue hosting John Esposito's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which was originally founded in 1993 with a grant from PLO board member Hasib Sabagh

I don't trust any scientists. I have a PhD in applied science, and am fully capable of reviewing the data myself, which I have been doing for over 20 years. I believe and trust hard facts, and have a very low opinion of climate "scientists" who have been shilling for grant money and wildly wrong for the last 20 plus years with their computer models and predictions, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp... AGW "scientists" have been caught repeatedly faking numbers, http://www.washingtontimes.com... and even they will agree that the science is far from settled (the only people arguing that the science is settled and all scientists believe in AGW are Bill Nye and the idiot politicians and those who worship at their feet). Further, your assertion that being right that the temperature is going up somehow validates the AGW "scientists" is ludicrous. Is it rational, as the AGW "scientists" argue, to destroy our civilization, and kill millions of people (even unintentionally, they are still dead, and rolling back civilization in favor of nature always costs lives, just ask the 45 million Africans who have died of Malaria to "save the birds" after we stopped using DDT http://www.discoverthenetworks... http://www.who.int/malaria/med... )

If the global temperature will rise another 0.3C in the next 100 years before falling 2C in the following 500 years is it in any way rational to divert funds from the most efficient and economical solutions to problems like energy, transportation, heating and AC? I will answer for you: No, it is not. Is there any moral, legal or rational justification for redistributing by force natural resources or money to countries more affected by global warming if AGW is not real? No there is not. There are some very key results if AGW is real or not that come into play.

Scientific fact says CO2 levels pre-industrial revolution were measured between 250 and 550 PPM. Therefore, our measurements today do not indicate much, if any, change in CO2 concentrations globally. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that plant growth is limited primarily by CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and that is where all the CO2 has been going as we produce it. This theory has been thoroughly tested and proven scientifically (if you increase CO2 concentrations locally, keeping other factors constant, plant growth is more rapid, more dense and the overall carbon capture rate increases.) This is scientific fact, not pull it out of your ass speculation.

Furthermore, hard science says that the earth's atmosphere is already 100% opaque in the 3 IR bands that CO2 absorbs. Thus, arguing more CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming is wild speculation at best and at worst irrational/disingenuous.

Unlike your (incorrect) assertions, I do not follow others, I have and will continue to evaluate the evidence myself. I am happy to make a prediction for you: The climate will change. It will be either hotter or cooler than it is today. Glaciers will either grow or shrink. Sea levels will either rise or fall. The one constant that we know is that the climate is never constant. To assert that what we see today is atypical and caused by humans based on the last 300 years of observation is irrational and completely ignores the facts at hand. https://static.skepticalscienc...

Thank you for "giving me the chance" to repost the link to my research that you never bothered to look for, and was sitting right there, out in the open for you to find, simply by looking at my original post. Man, when you lefties don't want to understand something, you really go all out pretending not to see it.

http://www.discoverthenetworks...

And, of course, there's just plain 'ol google...it can be your friend:

https://www.google.com/search?...

Besides...communists being associated with unions is hardly a surprise at all, on any level; they are fundamentally communist organizations to begin with.

But, hey, since you don't mind communists; vote for Hillary. The Communist Party USA and the Socialist Party USA have both endorsed her.

That's utterly ridiculous. Slashdot has always leaned Left. I reliably lose points for expressing rightwing opinions of any kind,almost every poll has shown Hillary with a comfortable lead, and articles such as this that espouse leftwing dogma are regularly in the news feeds here. The fact that the poster actually chose to post such a blatantly political post here, and that it was accepted by the staff should be all the proof you need. Stern himself is an international communist http://www.discoverthenetworks... and the SEIU can only be charitably called a leftwing brownshirt factory.

disclaimer: chomsky adorns my mantle.

I assume that would be Cambodian genocide denier, anti-Semite, anti-American Noam Chomsky?

(This is rich, as is Chomsky: Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist. Interesting use of copyright too. )

I hope you cast a wider net for views than just fringe Left figures like Chomsky.

As a Constitutional matter everyone running is qualified. As a political matter pretty much all of them are qualified as well, including pretty much every Republican.

Sanders is an interesting fellow. He seems to be both more open and honest than many of his peers and competitors in the Democratic party, especially H. Clinton. He seems to listen to his constituents despite having some strong particular ideological leanings. Although his policy proposals would bankrupt the US he is probably preferable to Hillary Clinton, especially with a Republican Congress. Clinton's appeal escapes me in pretty much every respect. She has serious temperament issues (record of abusive, vindictive, and arrogant conduct), integrity problems, meager genuine accomplishments, and a penchant for failing solutions. She married well, which is perhaps why she simultaneously maintains that women making rape claims should be believed but has helped suppress women alleging Bill Clinton raped them.

The US middle and working classes are in trouble. A better economy would be a big help, but Obama administration policies and Democratic demands have largely served to either drive things further off the rails or to stifle a stronger economic recovery.

There is something of a pattern in this: No Country for Burly Men
The Democrats block attempts at reforms aimed preventing damage and implement programs that do damage.
The Republicans attempted to reform the mortgage industry problems that led directly to the economic implosion, and the democrats blocked it.
President Obama's time in office has been a disaster for black Americans.
"Obamacare" is imploding.

As to the whole Democrat / social democrat / "socialist" / Socialist / Communist thing ... why don't you take a few minutes to look at this. It was written by a man who was a friend and mentor to Obama, it is said he was the ghostwriter for one of his books. And here is another very close adviser, and there is someone President Obama appointed as the "green jobs czar." We're dealing with more than "social democrats" here already. However they are constrained by laws until they either change or ignore them and the Congress. They won elections, not a revolution.

Probably not. It is pretty common for people to become radicalized during or after their education. If it was all planned you would expect to see clustering around majors that directly related to creation of bombs or weapons, but I doubt that is the case. Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, studied architecture and urban planning. He was strongly influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood during his education.

Yay for vaccine, some day, even for infants.
Yay for FREE mosquito nets.
But you do realize however... these are measures that we --- the countries who have already eradicated Malaria --- would not tolerate, if WE were as affected as they?

THE WHITEWASHED VERSION OF HISTORY
You're living it. Most people have no real perspective on DDT at all, it is simply something evil which allowed persons in developed countries which had already eradicated Malaria to claim its discontinuance as "the greatest environmental victory for everybody, ever"... though actually, taking lead out of gasoline was the real greatest victory. Most are too zero-tolerance enviro-Puritan even to consider a distinction between a light regimen of spraying walls inside homes versus the (mind bogglingly huge) agricultural applications throughout North America up to 1972, which everyone agrees was a bad idea. DDT is simply some 'evil banned substance'. Anyone talking about it is a loon. Anyone asking, where could they possibly get some is a subversive. It has come to this. That is the extent of this modern ugly.

THE UNWASHED VERSION OF HISTORY: BLOOD ON OUR HANDS
How do you calculate the value of 50 million lives, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa, most of them children? Sadly, you have to go to a politically motivated website to find this figure in proper context, and an an excellent summary of DDT's history:

"As recently as 2005, 500 million people around the world (approximately one-twelfth of the earth's population) were contracting malaria on an annual basis; and each year, 2 to 3 million of them died as a result. Since the 1972 U.S. ban on DDT, more than 50 million people--about 90 percent of whom resided in sub-Saharan Africa, and most of whom were children younger than five--have died of malaria. Said the World Health Organization, "more people are now infected [with malaria] than at any point in history," with "up to half a billion cases [being reported] every year." Anywhere from 1 to 2 million of those people die from the disease. Dr. Wenceslaus Kilama, chairman of Malaria Foundation International, placed this figure into perspective: "This is like loading up seven Boeing 747 airliners each day, then deliberately crashing them into Mt. Kilimanjaro." "The resurgence of a disease that was almost eradicated [many] years ago is a case study in the danger of putting concern for nature above concern for people," said Nizam Ahmad, a Bangladeshi analyst who focuses on the problems that affect developing countries.

Or find this Wayback New Yorker article describing the human triumph of malaria eradication that may well be from the point of view of DDT itself, for no other measure taken deserves near as much praise. Or this which cites a telling South African infection/mortality study with a particularly chilling graph.

Or the paper The Burden of Early Exposure to Malaria in the United States, 1850-1860: Malnutrition and Immune Disorders [2007] which not only describes the direct impact of malaria in the United States, but also suggests some previously-unexplored side effects of such an endemic disease on populations that made life really suck. For example, "Union Army recruits who spent their early years in malaria-endemic counties were 1.1 inches shorter at enlistment due to malnutrition and were 13 percent more susceptible to infections during the U.S. Civil War as a result of immune disorders than were those from malaria-free regions."

I'm not bringing all this up because I'm trying to convince you that Malaria is bad. We know it's bad. But in the early 1970s something happened within the United States and

Justice served. Just like when we invaded Iraq.

FTFY

Bush: No Saddam Links To 9/11
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE WAR

The Brookings Institute is funded by Soros and other proper leftist billion and million aires. So, what's your point?

http://www.discoverthenetworks...

Your requested evidence

Since you need relatively few fraudulent votes to tip tight elections, how much vote fraud is OK. It is often accepted that Kennedy won over Nixon due to fraud. Likewise for Johnson in Texas. These are old races. How about Gore v Bush in Florida, only a few hundred votes officially -- well within the margin of fraud as documented by many of the examples in the linked article.

The correct amount of fraud is as little as possible. The correct amount of voter suppression is a little as possible. To a certain degree these are conflicting goals. There are some additional methods to help -- such as provisional ballots. Life is not perfect, but voter ID is clearly effective in reducing voter fraud, but it is not necessarily a tool of voter suppression -- and the Supreme Court has supported this.

If you substitute "progressive" for Liberals you might be on to something.

It's Official: Leftist-Islamist Alliance against the West
RADICAL ISLAM'S ALLIANCE WITH THE SOCIALIST LEFT
The Leftist-Islamist Alliance in Pictures

I trust you'll be relieved to read this paper:

Did the U.S. Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill's Genocide Rhetoric

Abstract

In this analysis of the genocide rhetoric employed over the years by Ward Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado, a "distressing" conclusion is reached: Churchill has habitually committed multiple counts of research misconduct—specifically, fabrication and falsification. While acknowledging the "politicization" of the topic and evidence of other outrages committed against Native American tribes in times past, this study examines the different versions of the "smallpox blankets" episode published by Churchill between 1994 and 2003. The "preponderance of evidence" standard of proof strongly indicates that Churchill fabricated events that never occurred—namely the U.S. Army's alleged distribution of smallpox infested blankets to the Mandan Indians in 1837. The analysis additionally reveals that Churchill falsified sources to support his fabricated version of events, and also concealed evidence in his cited sources that actually disconfirms, rather than substantiates, his allegations of genocide.

WARD CHURCHILL

Ward Churchill was a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder from 1990 until 2007, when he was fired for research misconduct.

Batista was a U.S. puppet, and his cronies (who are now a significant voting block in FL) lost a lot of money and power when Castro came in. They want it back, and they want it back BAD. The U.S. will murder, commit terrorism, or do anything else to accomplish this goal.

The most shameful incident (IMHO) came in 1976, when a CIA agent blew up a civilian Cuban airliner, killing 78 innocent people. And said CIA agent is still living free (and protected) in the U.S. to this day. The U.S., my country, openly committing terrorism for petty economic ends. Fucking pathetic.

Castro was a Soviet puppet, and his cronies (who are now a significant power block in Cuba) gained a lot of money and power when Castro came in. They want to keep it, and they want to keep it BAD. The Cuban communists will murder, commit terrorism, jail the opposition, or do anything else to accomplish this goal.

It is hard to pick the most shameful incident, but surely Che's bloodbaths must be considered.

The Truth About Che Guevara

Cuba is a police state and Che was its co-founder. Cubans “love” him the same way Romanians “loved” Nicolae Ceausescu and East Germans “loved” Berlin Wall architect Erich Honecker

You know what happens to Cubans who display open hatred of Che?

They get arrested.

When he was still alive, they were executed or herded into slave-labor camps.

So yeah, everyone “loves” him. It’s required by law. Woe to those who disobey State Security.

The human spirit is a powerful force, though, and some Cubans can’t take it. A million and a half fled to the United States to escape the instruments of Che Guevara’s repression, many across the Florida Straits where the odds of survival are no better than two out of three. Others resisted at home, especially during the 1960s, the decade of global rebellion.

CHE GUEVARA

In his book Che Guevara: A Biography, Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering "several thousand" executions during the first year of the Castro regime. Felix Rodriguez, the Cuban-American CIA operative who helped track him down in Bolivia and was the last person to question him, says that Che during his final talk, admitted to "a couple thousand" executions. But he shrugged them off as all being of "imperialist spies and CIA agents."

Vengeance, much less justice, had little to do with the Castro/Che directed bloodbath in the first months of 1959. Che's murderous agenda in La Cabana fortress in 1959 was exactly Stalin's murderous agenda in the Katyn Forest in 1940. Like Stalin's massacre of the Polish officer corps, like Stalin's Great Terror against his own officer corps a few years earlier, Che's firing squad marathons were a perfectly rational and cold blooded exercise that served their purpose ideally. His bloodbath decapitated literally and figuratively the first ranks of Cuba's anti-Castro rebels.

Oh, and here are more of the people that you label as Batista "cronies," which ordinary people would refer to as people fleeing violent oppression.

Castro launches Mariel boatlift, April 20, 1980

On this day in 1980, Cuban President Fidel Castro proclaimed in Havana that any Cuban who wished to immigrate to the United States could board a boat at the nearby port of Mariel. During the ensuing months, some 125,000 Cubans fled to Florida in about 1,700 packed boats, at times overwhelming the U.S. Coast Guard and immigration authorities.

I guess anyone that wan

More people have been persecuted, hounded, ruined, tortured, burned, murdered, and just exterminated en-masse because of a book called the Bible than any other document in human history including Mein Kampf and Das Capital put together.

Just sayin' .

As long as your meaning is, "They were persecuted for believing in Judaism or Christianity," or for owning a Torah or Bible, very possibly.

Beginnings of Christian Martyrdom

In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man."

WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES

A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.

League of Militant Atheists
North Korea Ranked No. 1 for Christian Persecution
Persecuted and forgotten: Egypt's Christians
A Global Slaughter of Christians, but America’s Churches Stay Silent
Christian Persecution in China Despite Supposed Religious 'Freedom'
The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity

UNDERSTANDING ANTI-SEMITISM AND ITS HISTORY

The list is obviously much longer.

Since someone is practically certain to object along two lines, lets dispose of them now.

Yes, the Spanish Inquisition was terrible, it was also limited in scope.
The Crusades were a long delayed response to Muslim invasion of the Holy Land.

I have given you many references to one specific well documented example where the NSA was involved in the identification and takedown of key leaders of a political movement.

No you didn't. What you "gave" me was a link with a search string in it, which is essentially providing nothing while allowing you to disclaim any specific example. That is hardly different than claiming you documented something by handing out the street address of the library. If you want to make that claim then provide a specific URL or documentation about specific incidents.

Your posts here strongly smell of socially destructive Right Wing Authoritarianism

And your posts smell strongly of fascist techniques, such as those documented by Julius Yourman in the Journal of Educational Sociology:

NAME CALLING - "Name calling" is a device to make us form a judgment without examining the evidence on which it should be based. Here the propagandist appeals to our hate and fear.

CARD STACKING - "Card stacking" is a device in which the propagandist employs all the arts of deception to win our support for himself, his group, nation, race, policy, practice, belief, or ideal. He stacks the cards against the truth. He uses underemphasis and overemphasis to dodge or evade facts

TRANSFER - "Transfer" is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept.

I suppose as a disciple of Chomsky, long a denier of the Cambodian genocide, and who knows who else, that should be expected. (I did find it amusing the last time Chomsky came up that you provided links defending his association with Holocaust deniers, that have been exposed, apparently thinking that would cover his issues with Cambodia.)

Perhaps you need to know more about Noam Chomsky from a different perspective.

ivy league universities whose cultures are loaded with marxist philosophy

I was going to parody this comrade, but I couldn't think of any way to make it funnier.

What I see isn't so much funny as sad. Higher education has clearly been captured by the Left, and Cultural Marxism is dominant. Ideas springing from or influenced by Marxism are influential or dominant in many areas even when outright Marxism isn't. Chomsky is the most highly cited living author. Apparently you would deny this.

ivy league universities whose cultures are loaded with marxist philosophy

I was going to parody this comrade, but I couldn't think of any way to make it funnier.

What I see isn't so much funny as sad. Higher education has clearly been captured by the Left, and Cultural Marxism is dominant. Ideas springing from or influenced by Marxism are influential or dominant in many areas even when outright Marxism isn't. Chomsky is the most highly cited living author. Apparently you would deny this.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5184

Union of Concerned Scientists

Whatever his deepest personal inclinations are, President Obama won an election, not a revolution. He has to govern within the existing structure, with another party in opposition, and conform to the existing rules. You would certainly be mistaken to think he isn't shifting things noticeably to the left within that framework. There really isn't any question about the politics of his former "green jobs czar," Van Jones, is there? And an interesting comment from his former press secretary, Anita Dunn. Early on in his campaign, there were a number of reports or interviews of his early supporters, and several of them that I saw had a similar motif in the wall coverings. Move along, nothing to see here, right?

I would also advise you to not make the mistake of thinking that the US does not have a genuine Left. Among others, the Communist Party USA would beg to differ with you. Since they have little open support, guess what many of the hard left do when they want to actually hold office? Tone down the rhetoric, declare themselves to be "progressives," and join a more moderate party than they would prefer. Once in office, incrementalism moves them towards their goals.

I doubt that will have any meaningful effect as most "nullification" laws don't.

I doubt that much will come of it anytime soon anyway since the norm has been to use ordinary criminal law inside the US and the Law of War outside it when dealing with al Qaida. The only way I could see this having much impact would be during an internal insurrection unless there was a huge, undetected al Qaida attack being plotted in the US. That is huge in terms of numbers of attackers, not necessarily in body count. Of course with the Obama administration driving toward the cliff while strangling the economy, who can say what will happen. Perhaps it is all part of a Cloward-Piven Strategy.

Apparently written by someone that has never really looked into politics in the US. The US has a full political spectrum, including communists* and socialists just like Europe. The thing is that most Americans won't vote for communists if they understand that is who is running for office.

SEIU drops mask, goes full commie
William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire (Who is BILL AYERS ?

*Including the "eliminationist" variety. See William Ayer's manifesto above.

Major General Smedley Butler, United States Marine Corp, was an extraordinarily brave and devoted Marine who served the United States in an exceptional manner while in uniform, earning two Congressional Medals of Honor - the highest American medal for bravery on the battlefield. Out of uniform and in the realm of politics, however, citizen Butler involved himself in leftist fringe politics. I would be inclined to follow Major General Butler anywhere on the battlefield, but nowhere near a voting booth. In this regard he is like Chomsky, a man of exceptional virtual in his field, but a political crank (popular though he may be) and genocide denier.

. . . . Back in the 1930s, the U.S. Communist Party recruited a former Marine Corps general, Smedley Butler, to give speeches on the eve of World War II denouncing military preparedness as a capitalist racket. The idea was that by persuading an individual man of valor to propound shameful views, those views would somehow become less shameful. It didn’t work then. I doubt it will work now. - Wesley Who?

I humbly suggest that read and think more before knee jerk posting. The world is more complicated than you think. You think a certain way. You speak a certain way, because someone has crafted a message for you. Instead of being so vitriolic when someone suggests a counter argument or differing world view, take some time and explore.

Its really the height of irony that those who pride themselves on challenging the status quo and excepted "truth" are the last ones to ever do so when it comes to their beliefs. I mean you, gratuitously liberal slashdot poster. When something becomes an ideology, you leave the realm of rationality. This is true for religion, right wing and yes, even left wing politics.

Now, to shut down your reply. It depends on what you mean by own. Rupert Murdoch does not completely own his various media outlets, but has a controlling share. Similarly, Soros has a controlling and influential stake in many things. The difference is you turn a blind eye to later. That is a sad thing.

Looks like more information is needed:

VAN JONES
Van Jones, 'Green Jobs Czar', a self-described 'communist' arrested during Rodney King riots
White House Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy Over Past Activism
The resignation (and coming MSM/left-wing martyrdom) of Van Jones; Obama “thanks him for his service”

The United States doesn't really have a left-wing party.

That is a mistaken idea commonly held by people without a strong understanding of the American political system and politics. The US does in fact have a full political spectrum from left to right, including real, honest to Lenin and Marx Communists , and Communist Party. (More than one, actually.) It even includes people who have been willing to go the Stalin or Pol Pot route (see below after reading the rest of this). The difference is that people in the United States generally won't vote for Communists if they understand that is who is running for office. That is why many on the hard left camouflage themselves by rhetorically moving to the center and refer to themselves as progressives, or some other label, to merge into the larger body of the moderate left. If they make it into government, they are forced to govern by incrementalism using ordinary political means since they gain office by votes, not by revolution.

When Emeritus Isn't Automatic

"I intend to vote against conferring the honorific title of our university to a man whose body of work includes a book dedicated in part to the man who murdered my father, Robert F. Kennedy. There can be no place in a democracy to celebrate political assassinations or to honor those who do so."

Who is BILL AYERS? (This page has link to download the Prarie Fire political manifesto referenced below.)

William Ayers says Weather Underground, Boston bombings not same

William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire

We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years. . . .

...We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build a new society.

And more....

The Weather Underground openly discussed exterminating 25 million Americans who refused to be "re-educated" into communism...

... I bought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. We, we become responsible, then, for administrating, you know, 250 million people.

And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics; how are you going to clothe and feed these people.

The only thing that I could get, was that they expected that the Cubans and the North Vietnamese and Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States.

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the southwest, where we would take all the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them... how things were going to be.

I asked, well, what's going to happen to those people that we can't re-educate; that are die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 2

Left? the US doesn't have a left. it has a right and far right.

That is a mistaken idea commonly held by people without a strong understanding of the American political system and politics. The US does in fact have a full political spectrum from left to right, including real, honest to Lenin and Marx Communists , and Communist Party. (More than one, actually.) It even includes people who have been willing to go the Stalin or Pol Pot route (see below after reading the rest of this). The difference is that people in the United States generally won't vote for Communists if they understand that is who is running for office. That is why many on the hard left camouflage themselves by rhetorically moving to the center and refer to themselves as progressives, or some other label, to merge into the larger body of the moderate left. If they make it into government, they are forced to govern by incrementalism using ordinary political means since they gain office by votes, not by revolution.

William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire

We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years. . . .

...We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build a new society.

And more....

The Weather Underground openly discussed exterminating 25 million Americans who refused to be "re-educated" into communism...

... I bought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. We, we become responsible, then, for administrating, you know, 250 million people.

And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics; how are you going to clothe and feed these people.

The only thing that I could get, was that they expected that the Cubans and the North Vietnamese and Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States.

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the southwest, where we would take all the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them... how things were going to be.

I asked, well, what's going to happen to those people that we can't re-educate; that are die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

Who is BILL AYERS?

William Ayers says Weather Underground, Boston bombings not same

Just a few more additions -

When Good People Do Bad Things

Political Culture with Thomas Sowell: Free Markets and Marxism
Dr. Sowell was a Marxist for a decade.

Leftists Will be Shot in the U.S. When Marxists come to power

How A Failed Commune Gave Us What Is Now Thanksgiving

RESULTS OF COMMUNISM / SOCIALISM

Reflections on Communism Twenty Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall

The Divergence between Theory and Practice

Richard Pipes of Harvard University has argued that in addition to these proximate causes, the fundamental cause of the collapse “was the utopian nature of its [the regime’s] objectives.” That is to say, the Soviet system from its earliest days pursued goals that were both unrealizable and unpopular, including the attempted creation of “the new socialist man.”11 Those utopian efforts demanded a waste of resources, vast amounts of coercion and fraudulent political propaganda. Martin Malia of the University of California at Berkeley made a similar point: “Of all the reasons for the collapse of communism, the most basic is that it was an intrinsically nonviable, indeed impossible project from the beginning. However important in its genesis were the heritage of Russian backwardness and authoritarianism, or the personal ruthlessness of Lenin and Stalin, it is Marxism that was the decisive factor . . . making communism the historically unique phenomenon it was. And the perverse genius of Marxism is to present an unattainable utopia as an infallibly scientific enterprise.”

These Western assessments of the nature of communism—utopian or otherwise—have great bearing on the disputes and explanations regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thus, one set of the responses to the collapse was shaped by the belief that it occurred because, as Malia and Pipes argued, the system sought to achieve utopian goals inspired by Marxism. In other words, the collapse occurred because theory and practice converged (i.e., Marxist theory compelled communist systems to pursue unattainable utopian goals). The theoretical foundation or blueprint itself was flawed, not viable, as Malia put it. Milovan Djilas, the Yugoslav communist politician who later became a critic of communist totalitarianism, also believed that “the [communist] idea itself contained the seeds of its own inglorious, future collapse. . . . Such visions may encourage us to sacrifice . . . but they are also opiates to the soul. . . . The idea dried up in proportion as the reality legitimized by it grew stronger.”13 . . . .

. . . The reasons leading to the collapse included both sets of factors: some of the ideals or theoretical propositions of Marxism were clearly adopted and zealously pursued but they had adverse, unintended consequences. For example the collectivization of agriculture retarded food production, and state controlled industrialization created a huge, inefficient bureaucracy, diminished incentives of the workers, and contributed greatly to the concentration of political power. Marx and Lenin (initially) believed that communist ideals would command broad popular support and therefore little violence or coercion will be required to implement them. They also believed that all forms of human misbehavior will “wither away” after the proletarian revolution and the seizure of the means of production. As Leszek Kolakowski put it, “Marx seems to have imagined

In the history of mankind, it has never been a BAD idea to ban a pesticide.

The obvious counterexample is DDT. It got banned and as a result malaria wasn't eradicated. This link claims 50 million lives lost due to the ban since the 70s.

You forget that Martin is black, and Zimmerman is white.

Therefore, according to the rules of racial and cultural Marxism as defined by Antonio Gramsci, Zimmerman is GUILTY.

Not just of MURDERING Martin, but of any and all bad things that ever happened to him or anyone else in his entire family.

Zimmerman is guilty, and Martin innocent, not because of what either of them did or did not do, but because of the tribal groups they belong to. People with paler complexions have, at various times and places, done bad things to people with darker complexions. Therefore the darker complected people alive today are granted moral superiority over lighter complected people. It does not matter that neither the paler nor the darker people alive today have anything to do with these past wrongs. It does not matter that none of them are victims and none of them are perpetrators. A skin-deep resemblance to past victims or past perpetrators is sufficient to cast one in the role of victim or perpetrator, with penalties or compensation doled out accordingly.

Zimmerman will go to prison for the crime of defending himself against a member of a group he was not allowed to protect himself from. White people in the antebellum south were allowed to beat black people and smash their heads into the ground. Therefore black people are allowed to do the same thing to white people today. White people who resist will be treated the same way a black person would have been in the past. This is Social Justice.

Or could it be that we already know what the cause is, but it is inconvenient to mention it?

Black cops arrest black perps at least at the same rate as white cops.
Black Judges sentence black criminals to terms that do not differ from those by White Judges.
Citation Here.

There is some evidence that Black Officers arrest blacks at a higher rate than white officers,
probably because they don't have to be worried about being charged with racism.

Findings suggest that officer race has direct influence on arrest outcomes and there are substantive differences between White and Black officers in the decision to arrest. In general, White officers in our study were more likely to arrest suspects than Black officers, but Black suspects were more likely to be arrested when the decision maker was a Black officer.

Why is it racist to use black crime statistics, but not sexist to use male crime statistics?

"Breaking the Law is useful in enforcing the Law that is illegal under the foundation of Law."

Wonderful little police state you got there.

Most people here will mistakenly think your comment is snide, but isn't it closer to the mark to call it appreciation tinged with envy?* Of course it isn't true, the United States isn't a police state. Defending yourself against would-be mass murderers, that is terrorists as opposed to political dissenters, is not oppression. Neither is surveillance on people in direct contact with Al Qaida oppression. You'll know the United States is a genuine police state when "slandering the state" earns you 10 years in a labor camp as was common under various socialist regimes of the sort you don't seem to criticize much.

The United States isn't quite there yet as President Obama's "Green Jobs Czar", Van Jones, was just a little too openly radical for the present age.

Proposed Soviet Legal Code to Retain Execution - By ESTHER B. FEIN, Special to the New York Times, December 18, 1988

Groups and individuals monitoring human rights have been anticipating the legal changes, hoping that they would eliminate articles that have been used to suppress and punish political dissent - in particular, Article 70, which sanctions imprisonment for anti-Soviet agitation, and Article 190, which allows it for anti-Soviet slander. But the ''guidelines for criminal legislation of the U.S.S.R. and the constituent republics,'' do not mention either article. They deal with some, but not all, of the individual statutes, and mostly offer direction to the 15 republics for rewriting their criminal codes.

* Nobody should be confused about the willingness of would-be revolutionaries to fight the system they intend to overthrow with its own procedures (Rule 4) to maximize their opportunity to act legally while working to subvert the nation. (Once power passes to them, surprises can follow.) The founding leadership of the ACLU is a case in point:

First, Roger Baldwin: Baldwin was the founder of the ACLU . . . Baldwin was an atheist. He was also a onetime communist, who, among other ignoble gestures, wrote a horrible 1928 book called Liberty Under the Soviets. Notably, he was smart enough not to join Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Other early officials of the ACLU, which was founded almost exactly the same time as the American Communist Party, included major party members like William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Louis Budenz (who later broke with the party). Communists used the ACLU to deflect questions from the U.S. government over whether they were loyal to the USSR, were serving Joe Stalin in some capacity, and were committed to the overthrow of the American system. . . .

So bad had been the ACLU in aiding and abetting American communists that various legislative committees, federal and state, considered whether it was a communist front. The 1943 California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities reported that the ACLU "may be definitely classed as a communist front." The committee added that "at least 90 percent of its [the ACLU's] efforts are expended on behalf of communists who come into conflict with the law." That 90-percent figure was consistent with a major report produced by Congress a decade earlier, January 17, 1931. --- The ACLU's Not-So-Holy Tri

Har. Nice try - but check out who wrote that, it's no surprise they're spouting the praise of and defense for Obama.

Author - Michael Linden of the "Center for American Progress Action Fund". Who are they? Wikipedia says:

The Center for American Progress is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. Its website states that the organization is "dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action." It has its headquarters in Washington D.C. Its President and Chief Executive Officer is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns. Its first President and Chief Executive Officer was John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Podesta remains with the organization as Chairman of the Board. Located in Washington, D.C., the Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Citing Podesta's influence in the formation of the Obama Administration, a November 2008 article in Time stated that "not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan's transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway."

Wow - could they even fit any more Democrats in there? It'd be tough...

No surprise it is funded by none other than George Souros. If you'll take the time to check out the origins and organizational makeup of that "non-partisan" (Hah!) CAP, you'll see that it is a literal Who's Who of Democratic Party faithful power brokers.

"Blaming Bush" is just Obama's lame excuse, that's obvious to see. IIRC, during his campaign he vowed to clean the mess up, and rather quickly. "Epic fail", I believe that is called.

Comments like yours fill me with a sense of despair for the future because there are so many people like you.

You despair for the wrong reason.

Essentially, you're the kind of person who would be absolutely shocked if, after you smeared dog shit on someone's face, they got mad at you for smearing dog shit on their face. Rather than note the obvious fact that they got pissed because you just smeared dog shit on their face, you'd have to come up with some justification for what you did, like, "he has freckles and hates people who don't."

I think you would be shocked to actually learn what is going on since you don't actually seem to know, or really have a good idea. This ultimately isn't about the US, it is about them - the Islamist extremists, their goals, and aspirations. Their kind was conquering and killing for hundreds of years (more like 1,000) before the US came along. Read Bin Laden's demands in his Letter to America. His first actual demand is that the United States convert to Islam. Second, he wants the Constitution replaced with Sharia law in all its glory: stone the adulterer, crush homosexuals under walls or throw them off of buildings, whip the immodest, chop off the hands of thieves, no drugs or alcohol, no interest charged on loans, and all the rest. That isn't a demand to "stop smearing shit on my face", that is the demand of a man determined to see the world under Islamic rule even if it takes 1,000 more years. This was a man who wanted to see the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, which existed until ~ 1924. Their grievances is that Islam has fallen from its former glory, and they intend to restore it. They want to retake Spain which pushed out Islamists rulers hundreds of years ago.

  What al-Qaida Really Wants

If you want to despair, then do it over the fact that this conflict could easily continue for 20, 50, or 100 more years as these flare ups of Islamist extremism do. Or Londonistan , or Eurabia

In a shrinking world, the extremists will probably never be far away.

Think about this: POVERTY, EDUCATION, AND TERRORISM

These facts should be well known by now. How is it that people keep getting this wrong eleven years after 9/11/2001?

At the The Other September 11th, the Battle of Vienna, the Islamist attackers were outside the gates trying to get in. In future battles, we will find them inside the gates, and too many of the defenders of the West ignorant and in doubt, or even ready to throw in with them.

As I wrote, you despair for the wrong reason.

What was incorrect?

You're kidding, right?

. . . his own country and conviction that it was the fount of evil in the world . . he traveled to Pakistan to inform Muslim audiences that America was planning to commit genocide in Afghanistan before it invaded to overthrow the Taliban.

Utter nonsense. Of course, maybe Chomsky is trying to over compensate for his denial of the Cambodian genocide for so many years.

Ethical perversion, not peace, is Chomsky's raison d'etre

One of the most disgraceful aspects of Chomsky's history as a political activist arises from his obdurate refusal to confess past sins. In his co-authored book Manufacturing Consent published in 1988, he continued to defend his refutation of the Khmer Rouge genocide. Even after demonstrable proof of crimes against humanity emerged after the 1979 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, Chomsky remained adamant that his initial dismissal of mass murder was justified.

And in a stunningly dishonest interview given just last October to the Phnom Penh Post, Chomsky boasted of his "accurate review of the facts". He then engaged in the most brazen prevarication on his stance towards the Khmer Rouge, falsely claiming to have "harshly condemned Pol Pot's crimes".

But the taking of such flagrant liberties with truth is par for the Chomsky course. During another scandalous episode in which Chomsky was caught fabricating quotations, historian Arthur Schlesinger remarked: "Like the squid, he covers his retreat in a cloud of black ink."

Noam Chomsky's sordid history of service as an apologist for genocidaires is part of the open public record. And this gives rise to the question why the Sydney Peace Foundation selected such a morally tainted individual as an appropriate recipient for their 2011 Peace Prize.

Why is it OK for the US to retaliate, but not others?

Are you really trying to establish the principle that random collections of people can form terrorist groups and kill large number of civilians at will, just because they are angery? If one of your posts pisses off a bunch of Asians, it's OK with you if they load up a truck bomb and go hunting for you in your village/town/city, and set it off in the mall just because you might be there? I take it that the rule of law isn't so important to you then?

Major General Smedley Butler, United States Marine Corp, was an extraordinarily brave and devoted Marine who served the United States in an exceptional manner while in uniform, earning two Congressional Medals of Honor - the highest American medal for bravery on the battlefield. Out of uniform and in the realm of politics, however, citizen Butler involved himself in leftist fringe politics. I would be inclined to follow Major General Butler anywhere on the battlefield, but nowhere near a voting booth. In this regard he is like Chomsky, a man of exceptional virtual in his field, but a political crank (popular though he may be) and genocide denier.

. . . . Back in the 1930s, the U.S. Communist Party recruited a former Marine Corps general, Smedley Butler, to give speeches on the eve of World War II denouncing military preparedness as a capitalist racket. The idea was that by persuading an individual man of valor to propound shameful views, those views would somehow become less shameful. It didn’t work then. I doubt it will work now. - Wesley Who?

War is sometimes chosen for you by your enemies, not by some secret cabal in government or industry. Other nations and groups have their own plans, such as forcing Islamic conversion and Sharia law to replace the US Constitution on the US independent of anything the US does.

If the so called Military-Industrial complex is so powerful, why has the long term trend since World War 2 been towards decreased spending as a percentage of the economy?
Defense Spending as Percentage of GDP Well Below Historical Average

If there is no threat, why do we keep seeing arrests and convictions like this?

Federal agents arrest Amine El Khalifi; he allegedly planned to bomb Capitol
Federal authorities on Friday arrested a 29-year-old Moroccan man in an alleged plot to carry out a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol, the latest in a series of terrorism-related arrests resulting from undercover sting operations.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization. Full Story

Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland. Full Story

Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria,

Terrorists (at least the bottom-rank terrorists who commit the actual attacks) are almost always people marginalized by society who feel that they have nothing left to lose.

Not really, no.

POVERTY, EDUCATION, AND TERRORISM

Both before and after the 9/11 attacks, numerous studies have looked at the economic and educational backgrounds of Islamic terrorists. One investigation by Princeton-trained economist Claude Berrebi analyzed 335 members of the Palestinian terror groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The terrorists surveyed were mainly shahids, or "martyrs," who had died while waging jihad against Israel between 1987 and 2002. Berrebi discovered that 16 percent of those terrorists could be classified as poor, compared to 31 percent of the male Muslim population (between the ages 18 and 41) in the Palestinian territories as a whole. Conversely, 33 percent of the terrorists could be considered “well off,” compared to only 20 percent of Palestinian adult males in that same age group. And another 10 percent of the terrorists were “very well off” according to the survey, as opposed to virtually 0 percent of Palestinian males overall who fit that same description. The study also indicated that the Palestinian terrorists were generally more highly educated than the typical male in the Palestinian population at large.

Given the evidence, Berrebi concluded: “If there is a link between income level, education and participation in terrorist activities, it is either very weak or in the opposite direction of what one intuitively might have expected.”

Another study by terrorism expert Marc Sageman examined 102 Islamist radicals involved in global jihad. Like Berrebi, Sageman could find no correlation between poverty and terrorism; only about a quarter of the jihadis he looked at hailed from impoverished backgrounds. “[M]embers of the global Salafi jihad,” Sageman writes in his book Understanding Terror Networks, “were generally middle-class, educated young men from caring and religious families, who grew up with strong positive values of religion, spirituality and concern for their communities.”

The relative affluence of Islamic terrorists is by no means a new phenomenon. Indeed, a much earlier study -- of Islamist radicals in Egyptian prisons (and elsewhere) -- was conducted in the late 1970s by the Egyptian sociologist Saad Eddin Ibrahim; his findings were consistent with the more recent ones discussed above. “The typical member of the militant Islamic groups,” Ibrahim discovered, could be “described as young (early 20s), of rural or small-town background, from the middle or lower-middle class, with high achievement and motivation, upwardly mobile, with a scientific or engineering education, and from a normally cohesive family.” Ibrahim went on to conclude that the Islamist radicals he analyzed “were significantly above the average of their generation” in education, financial background, and motivation. Other studies further buttress these conclusions.

Pay no attention to the Koch behind the curtain...

At least the Koch brothers aren't former unapologetic Nazi collaborators and haven't played a key role in 6 past and ongoing international financial/currency collapses and 8 regime collapses like the Liberal/Progressive Democrat contributor George Soros who funds and/or controls dozens of groups on the left.

Soros: http://keywiki.org/index.php/George_Soros

Soros' Organizations: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589

This Koch brothers hysteria is nothing but those on the left attempting to find someone...anyone...on the right that's anywhere near the "rich evil genius" equal of the left's George Soros. In terms of harm done and general evilness, Soros makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker. The Koch brothers don't even show up on the radar at Soros' level of evil.

Strat

Rangel, who is black, has a long history of levying charges of racism against his political and ideological adversaries. For example, when the Republican-led Congress pushed for tax relief in 1994, Rangel denounced the plan as a form of modern-day racism. "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore," he raged. "[Instead,] they say, 'Let's cut taxes.'"

-CHARLES RANGEL (D-NY)

Who's the real racist? The party trying to ignore race, one who was founded to abolish slavery? Or the party that is constantly bringing race into the equation where it does not belong? I really must ask. Do you think "cut taxes" is racist? I for one think that giving special favor to people based on the color of their skin is racist - something that democrats have championed over and over again through race based college admissions, race based hiring, race based taxation, race based everything. Democrats are very interested in the color of your skin. Republicans don't care what color your skin is. Republicans want a society that is blind to skin color.

One group is logical and righteous, the other is a group of resent building, racist demagogues. "Whitey's got it too good!", "the rich man has got it too good". Just how the fuck are you going to pick yourself up by dragging everyone else down? If the rich are taxed at a higher rate does that money go to the jobless poor? No - it goes to the federal government who can't even run a fucking lemonade stand without loosing tens of billions of dollars. It could have gone to make jobs - but instead the government will squander it as they squander all money they confiscate. Lower taxes mean employers can hire more people - higher taxes mean employers can hire fewer people, it's not racist and it's pretty fucking simple.

Oh, and a few years ago, most of the world listened to the ultracapitalists and removed lots of regulation from the financial industries.

What regulations were removed? There were no loosening of regulations. If there was show me the citation. There isn't a more regulated system than the ones in place for financial institutions. The reason for the collapse, if you care to go back and find out, is largely due to people defaulting on home loans to GSA's (government entities) that the government forced down private banks throats. Because they were GSAs they were not subject to the regulation of the FTC, but to congress, under the stewardship of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. They first encouraged giving loans to minorities who otherwise would have been turned down (due to poor credit rating) and discouraged any sort of audit of Fannie or Freddie who eventually admitted to "cooking the books". But don't take my word for it, do a little reading.. Increasing regulation in an already over-regulated industry to combat government agencies that were not even subject to the regulation in the first place is just wrong. The reason this is 'so secret' is that the main stream media is overwhelmingly liberal and the idea that the GSAs can fuck something so bad doesn't fit their ideology so they report on it as sparingly as possible.

Like I said, "denial and bluster". Re: Oppenheimer...just google around for or read the other books on Soviet Spying in the USA. It is not reasonable to assume I can't replicate the output of books into a Slashdot discussion! It's not like his wife and brother being communists is a secret. This link covers much of what knew: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Father%20of%20the%20A%20Bomb.htm Here is a link to a discussion that goes much further on Oppenheimer then I was willing to go: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?doc_id=43900&fuseaction=topics.publications&group_id=13349&topic_id=1409 "His own party (the Democrats by the way - did you not even known that much?)" I lost track of who you are refering to with "His" If you mean Oppenheimer...I have no idea if he affiliated with the democrats or republicans. When he was younger (pre-WWII) he certainly identified as a communist for at least some time. For how long and to what degree that affiliation occurred, that is one of the questions at hand. If you mean McCarthy...he was Republican Senator from Wisconsin. "Communism was just the excuse for the populist witch hunt because..." More bluster and denial. The Soviet threat was real. The Soviets were pretty good at espionage and institutional infiltration. Are you denying this? Perhaps, I am just misunderstanding what you are saying. Is it just McCarthy's efforts/effects that were wrong? McCarthy sure does come across as a clown. The American left has used that to try to pretend that real Soviet activity was not going on. I have no idea if McCarthy correctly named any of the following types in USGOV: prior communists, secret communists, Soviet Agents/Spies, Soviet Agents of Influence. I say this because I don't who he named. He does seem clownish, so I imagine he made many mistakes. 100% mistakes? I have no idea. Blanket general assertions by left-leaning journalist, historians and movie makers (remember: "bluster and denial") do not convince me. I also don't have the time to do the research to see who he accused, and then to cross check that with what is known now. Some historian or journalist should. Heck, give me a grant fo r 6 months and I'll do it.

"All you really have to know about Net Neutrality is that its biggest promoters are George Soros and Google."

To begin with, the article linked is at www.dailykos.com, which is run by Markos Moulitsas. He is American born of a Salvadoran (a country with long standing socialist influences) mother and a Greek (more socialism) father, and grew up both in El Salvador and Chicago. Now I am from Indiana, not all that far from Chicago and know that a Republican in Chicago is regarded a Liberal in Indiana. He backed, and campaigned for Liberal Democrats throughout. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Moulitsas]. He is a Leftist, and his web site reflects that.

The DailyKos article links to an article at thinkprogress.org, from which google tells us that Soros funds Thinkprogress and following the money, behind Net Neutrality, just as Rush alleged. And for that matter, reading the entire list of inter-networked organizations covered at http://discoverthenetworks.org/ finds George Soros deeply involved in funding a vast network of anti USA, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-Business organizations of the progressive Left. That includes the attack on the Chamber of Commerce.
George Soros, a statist Socialist who wants to control the world, is behind “Net Neutrality” [link here]

All of these individuals and organizations are committed Socialists and Progressives. The problem with that here is the USA, is that it is the diametric opposite of the US Constitution, Liberty, Capitalism (which is just people saving their money and investing it), and all else this country stands for. It is nothing new that Socialism has been infiltrating the USA for over 100 years. And it is nothing new that Socialism has never, ever, not one time, worked for an extended period of time. It seems to work, until it runs out of other peoples money. It will then die as it has always in the past, and with a fair share of suffering and violence as the throes of death proceed.

In short, Net Neutrality, especially done by the FCC, is un-Constitutional

The problem of the FCC “regulating” the internet is that they have NO governmental right to do so.

They were denied that right previously in court.

They were denied that right by Congress regardless of how many times it was tried.

Briefy, the Executive branch (President, and *his* FCC) cannot make law. Congress makes law, which when passed must be approved by the President. And that can be revoked in the Courts. The case here is that the President through the FCC is making law.

Obama, long before he was elected President, Obama lamented that the "Constitution is a charter of negative liberties". [audio]. The problem here is that the Constitution in every point, limits government and gives it NO right to do anything TO its citizens. That was done by design of the Founders. Obama laments that because he wants to impose Socialism and wealth re-distribution. These two, Socialism and the US Constitution, are incompatible.

I also cannot understand why people here ca

"All you really have to know about Net Neutrality is that its biggest promoters are George Soros and Google."

To begin with, the article linked is at www.dailykos.com, which is run by Markos Moulitsas. He is American born of a Salvadoran (a country with long standing socialist influences) mother and a Greek (more socialism) father, and grew up both in El Salvador and Chicago. Now I am from Indiana, not all that far from Chicago and know that a Republican in Chicago is regarded a Liberal in Indiana. He backed, and campaigned for Liberal Democrats throughout. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Moulitsas]. He is a Leftist, and his web site reflects that.

The DailyKos article links to an article at thinkprogress.org, from which google tells us that Soros funds Thinkprogress and following the money, behind Net Neutrality, just as Rush alleged. And for that matter, reading the entire list of inter-networked organizations covered at http://discoverthenetworks.org/ finds George Soros deeply involved in funding a vast network of anti USA, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-Business organizations of the progressive Left. That includes the attack on the Chamber of Commerce.
George Soros, a statist Socialist who wants to control the world, is behind “Net Neutrality” [link here]

All of these individuals and organizations are committed Socialists and Progressives. The problem with that here is the USA, is that it is the diametric opposite of the US Constitution, Liberty, Capitalism (which is just people saving their money and investing it), and all else this country stands for. It is nothing new that Socialism has been infiltrating the USA for over 100 years. And it is nothing new that Socialism has never, ever, not one time, worked for an extended period of time. It seems to work, until it runs out of other peoples money. It will then die as it has always in the past, and with a fair share of suffering and violence as the throes of death proceed.

In short, Net Neutrality, especially done by the FCC, is un-Constitutional

The problem of the FCC “regulating” the internet is that they have NO governmental right to do so.

They were denied that right previously in court.

They were denied that right by Congress regardless of how many times it was tried.

Briefy, the Executive branch (President, and *his* FCC) cannot make law. Congress makes law, which when passed must be approved by the President. And that can be revoked in the Courts. The case here is that the President through the FCC is making law.

Obama, long before he was elected President, Obama lamented that the "Constitution is a charter of negative liberties". [audio]. The problem here is that the Constitution in every point, limits government and gives it NO right to do anything TO its citizens. That was done by design of the Founders. Obama laments that because he wants to impose Socialism and wealth re-distribution. These two, Socialism and the US Constitution, are incompatible.

I also cannot understand why people here ca

"All you really have to know about Net Neutrality is that its biggest promoters are George Soros and Google."

To begin with, the article linked is at www.dailykos.com, which is run by Markos Moulitsas. He is American born of a Salvadoran (a country with long standing socialist influences) mother and a Greek (more socialism) father, and grew up both in El Salvador and Chicago. Now I am from Indiana, not all that far from Chicago and know that a Republican in Chicago is regarded a Liberal in Indiana. He backed, and campaigned for Liberal Democrats throughout. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Moulitsas]. He is a Leftist, and his web site reflects that.

The DailyKos article links to an article at thinkprogress.org, from which google tells us that Soros funds Thinkprogress and following the money, behind Net Neutrality, just as Rush alleged. And for that matter, reading the entire list of inter-networked organizations covered at http://discoverthenetworks.org/ finds George Soros deeply involved in funding a vast network of anti USA, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-Business organizations of the progressive Left. That includes the attack on the Chamber of Commerce.
George Soros, a statist Socialist who wants to control the world, is behind “Net Neutrality” [link here]

All of these individuals and organizations are committed Socialists and Progressives. The problem with that here is the USA, is that it is the diametric opposite of the US Constitution, Liberty, Capitalism (which is just people saving their money and investing it), and all else this country stands for. It is nothing new that Socialism has been infiltrating the USA for over 100 years. And it is nothing new that Socialism has never, ever, not one time, worked for an extended period of time. It seems to work, until it runs out of other peoples money. It will then die as it has always in the past, and with a fair share of suffering and violence as the throes of death proceed.

In short, Net Neutrality, especially done by the FCC, is un-Constitutional

The problem of the FCC “regulating” the internet is that they have NO governmental right to do so.

They were denied that right previously in court.

They were denied that right by Congress regardless of how many times it was tried.

Briefy, the Executive branch (President, and *his* FCC) cannot make law. Congress makes law, which when passed must be approved by the President. And that can be revoked in the Courts. The case here is that the President through the FCC is making law.

Obama, long before he was elected President, Obama lamented that the "Constitution is a charter of negative liberties". [audio]. The problem here is that the Constitution in every point, limits government and gives it NO right to do anything TO its citizens. That was done by design of the Founders. Obama laments that because he wants to impose Socialism and wealth re-distribution. These two, Socialism and the US Constitution, are incompatible.

I also cannot understand why people here ca

How many terrorist attacks of any sort have taken place in Sweden or The Netherlands?

Sweden had its first suicide bombing this last weekend. The Netherlands have seen a number of killings, perhaps to some disturbing views: Dutch Muslim: 'Murder is normal'.

How many middle class persons of any country - people two or three times above that country's poverty line - have parked an explosives-laden truck next to a building and blown it up?

The middle class are strongly represented among terrorists and leaders of terrorist organizations. Here are just a few examples, there are many more:

“Doctor’s Plot” Trial Examines Unexpected Source for UK Terrorist Attacks
MOHAMMED ATTA - 9/11 Ring Leader
Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (MD) - Al-Qaeda's theological leader

It might be easier if this was all about poverty and social safety nets, but that isn't the case. Increasing numbers of young Muslims born and raised in the West are taking up arms and bombs to kill in the name of what they call Jihad. They are being radicalized in Western Europe.

The poverty/terror myth

Your bias is showing.

So, it is bias to recognize Soros is a billionaire and a leftist activist? Hmmm. OK, I'll meet you half way.

1.5 million people have died as a result of our attack on Iraq. ... many of them not from bombs but from starvation after the infrastructure needed for their water, food, and medical care was destroyed.

There is nothing within your links that makes the study 'almost certainly' anything.

Your bias and ignorance are showing. You also clearly aren't giving Saddam his due in neglecting and misusing the Iraqi infrastructure which has greatly added to the misery in Iraq.

How much better off would the Iraqi people have been if Saddam had built water, sewage, and power plants instead of a series of palace complexes, and smuggled luxury goods and weapons? The Iraqi people were not helped by the abuse of the Oil for Food program / scandal. We helped lift the yoke from the Iraqi people and are helping them rebuild their country. They are likely to end up far better off than if Saddam had continued in power, and probably with many fewer dead. (What's that? Oil?)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_timothy__071011_corporate_donations_.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democrats-rake-record-donations-corporations/story?id=9777742

Btw, since we are on the subject of Soros: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589